The RDA transformation to the FRBR model is now complete.

“A new organization for RDA”
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rda-new-org.html

As Obi-Wan might have said, “We’ve just taken the first step into a larger world”

First, let me state that, as of the present anyway, I have decided that “meaning” is probably the hardest concept to define that we have. It is certainly the hardest one I am aware of.

Second, I am well aware that it is highly polysemous. But, personally, I no longer recognize most of those meanings. “Meaning” has, in effect, come to have little (or perhaps, less) meaning for me. But the meaning that remains is critically important.

Third, I believe that much of the problem with the varied uses of “meaning” arises from primarily metaphoric uses of the term. That is, most of the definitions of meaning are metaphoric, and parasitic on the use I make of it. Of course, that is simply my opinion and not necessarily correct in any way, subjective or objective.

Fourth, I have no idea what other terms to use to replace the senses of meaning to which I object.

Fifth, I cannot adequately define what “meaning” means, even to myself. See the first point.

That all said, I will try to dance around the idea enough to perhaps give you some sense of what I take “meaning” to mean.

Often, we (myself included) talk about finding or discovering meaning, along with other types of locational contexts, such as locating meaning. As far as I am concerned, all of this kind of talk is highly metaphorical. These sorts of verbs are not properly used with meaning in a direct way, but only metaphorically. Often they fully suffice to convey (see what I mean?) what we mean when we use them. But, often, they get in the way and lead us astray as to what meaning actually is. That said, I have no good idea what kinds of verbs can be used in a literal sense with “meaning.”

Meaning is also used in ideas/fundamental questions such as the meaning of a life, or the meaning of the universe. As much as I love Douglas Adams work, I think the answer “42″ is meant to show the utter incoherence of such an idea, at least phrased using the concept of meaning. Having been raised in the church, and having received a pretty good undergraduate education in philosophy (at an age to appreciate it to its fullest) I once thought I understood such questions. I most certainly no longer do. I fully understand the desire, nay demand, to ask such questions. And although I don’t think they really have answers, I do think they could be formulated better, and that they are important.

The best I can say about meaning at the moment is that it is created (and that is not quite right) by humans. Whether apes, dolphins, extraterrestrials, etc. “make” meaning I am completely agnostic on. I would like to believe that humans are not the only creatures that make and use meaning in their lives.

Meaning is created by the connections we make between things due to our experiences in the world, be it “external” or “internal.” We create it by making connections between things, ideas, feelings, events, other people, ourselves, …. The list is virtually inexhaustable as are the kinds of connections that we can and do make.

That is why I do not think that computers can make or even find meaning. Sure, there is no doubt that a computer can recognize what it has been programmed to find (to be overly simplistic) but that is not the same thing. A computer can at best point to something that is meaningful, but only a human can actually “find” the meaning in it. [Dangit! I had a great citation for this point just yesterday. Damn you, mind!! Aha! Found it.]

“Data mining techniques may discover implicit information in explicit data but these techniques do not necessarily guarantee that the discovered information is relevant, significant and trustworthy.” Uta Priss, “Alternatives to the “Semantic Web”: Multi-Strategy Knowledge Representation” in ISKO 7 /AKO 8, p. 305.

Substitute meaning for information and, although it doesn’t exactly translate, you’ll get a glimpse of my point. It’s a lot like Swanson’s undiscovered public knowledge. Machines can “locate” and point at things which may, in fact, be meaningful (in the right context) when interpreted by a human. But the computer cannot understand, it cannot know, and thus it cannot recognize real meaning (although may point at possible meaning) and nothing can be meaningful to it.

Now, I do not mean anything related to intentions, as in “I meant to say such and such,” nor do I mean meaning in the sense of a dictionary’s gloss on a lemma. Even if a computer has the entire OED in memory and a good program to spit out appropriate senses in relation to words used in other programs the computer no more knows what the words mean, and more importantly still cannot construct meaning on a larger scale.

I am going to stop now as I realize that I am failing miserably. The best I can say is that I am trying to discuss “meaning” in, perhaps, its deepest sense and not in any of its more common senses. It is also, in my opinion, the hardest word/idea/concept to define. It is also the case that I am almost completely hamstrung by over 2000 years of Western culture, 100s of years of Western pedagogy, 100s of years of unquestioned metalinguistic practices such as the compilation and use of dictionaries, and lay perceptions of everyday linguistic practices (which are heavily influenced by all of the proceeding.

I am unprepared, for many reasons, to currently address the rest of your comments. I will say that I think we probably agree in the gross details, and quite likely in the finer ones. But I would completely restate what you said in a different way. That is, I do think the meaning we construct needs to (usually) connect to the world in some real sense. If you are saying that only science has the answer–I do not think you are–then I disagree. I also would not accept, except in the loosest way of speaking, that the world “makes sense.” It only makes sense, that is has meaning, to us. It makes sense in something in between but closer to the looser sense for other living entities in that they are (often) able to successfully flourish in it. But that is not the meaning to which I refer.

I do agree that the mind independent reality needs to (often) mesh with the social structural context. But, as I imagine you have experienced, it quite often does not.

As usual, thanks for making me think, Nathan. I still hope to get back to more of your comments from a while back. And on this topic, I have no doubt that it is a highly transitional work-in-progress. I doubt that I’ll ever have the answer but I hope to come much closer. A first hope is being able to even express my concerns such that someone else can appreciate my concerns, whether or not they agree.

Mark, to this you responded:

“I realize that the key word here is going to be “obvious,” but this statement makes absolutely no sense to me. I can parse it out in English well enough. I just find it completely meaningless unless one really waffles about their use of “by no means” and “obvious.” If a human cannot identify the semantic links then are they there? It is humans that construct meaning. Can a machine specify meanings between items when it cannot even recognize meaning in the first place?”

I am trying to think this through myself. If a machine has been programmed *by a human* to specify meanings between items, why might this not be possible – at least to certain degrees (I do not believe AI will ever fully replace humans)? Further , you say, “It is humans that construct meaning”, and I understand what you are saying, but when a chemist or physicist, for example, draws conclusions from evidence in the world, does this not mean that the world “makes sense”, in some sense at least, i.e. that it itself has meaning that should not be completely separated / lobotomized from our actually being able to *recognize* (not necessarily “create” ex nihilio) it, but perhaps ought to be distinguished nonetheless? Here I think we come back to the issue of the “theoretical-substantial context” (Hjorland’s “mind-independent reality”) and the Integrationist’s emphasis of “the social structural context”. I think they must be compatible, though I am not sure how to best make this case to the wider library community as a whole (I do think its important if we are not to lose touch with reality).

BTW there’s an interesting post and comments on the question of bibliographic models at Karen Coyle’s blog…

http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2007/10/bibliographic-er.html
…particularly the OpenLibrary and AustLit projects that are mentioned there.

I agree that our legacy situation is part of the issue. A big part even. But as I see the timeline (admittedly as a outsider to the process) it appears that the decisions to harmonize, if you will, took place well after work was begun. And the fact that we’re trying to harmonize with a standard that isn’t and will not be complete before RDA is complete is just baffling (to be polite).

However, this becomes a critical issue with the plans to express RDA as a DC application profile. Without a clear data model it’s not possible to express RDA data as a DC profile and express it in RDF. Pete Johnston’s response to the RDA Scope/Structure and Element Analysis papers is really worth reading on this:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0708&L=dc-rda&T=0&F=&S=&P=50